Gurmail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 753 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurmail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 January, 2026

                                                                              -1-
CWP-9234 of 2024


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                                         CWP-9234 of 2024

Gurmail Singh
                                                                  ......Petitioner
                     Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                              ......Respondents

Sr. No.                         Particulars                           Details
1.        The date when the judgment is reserved                  16.01.2026
2.        The date when the judgment is pronounced                29. 01.2026
3.        The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website   29. 01.2026
4.        Whether only operative part of the judgment is          Full
          pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5.        The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full         Not applicable
          judgment, and reasons thereof

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Argued by:: -Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

              Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing

the charge-sheet charge sheet dated 17.04.2020 (Annexure P P-4), issued by

respondent No.1, No.1 on the basis of instructions dated 06.01.2017, which

were non-exis existing on the date of allegation pertaining to the period

from October, 2006 to September, 2009, 2009 along with all consequential

departmental proceedings, proceedings including enquiry report dated 11.05.202 11.05.2022,

(Annexure P-5) P submitted by the inquiry officer officer, and also the order

dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-7), P 7), whereby punishment of 25%

permanent cut in pension of the petitioner has been awarded.

1 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that

the petitioner etitioner joined the respondent-department respondent department as Agriculture

Inspector on 20.11.1986 and he was promoted from time to time time. On

04.03.2020,, he was promoted to the post of Chief Agriculture Officer/

Deputy Director Agriculture and retired as such on 31.08.2020. While

posted as Insecticide Inspector in the office of the Chief Agriculture

Officer, Bathinda, petitioner took/filled filled the sample of Methalene 5%

DP of M/S Lachman Dass and Sons, Sons Bathinda on 10.10.2006 and the

same was deposited in the office of the Chief Agricultu Agriculture Officer,

Bathinda. The said sample sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Lab.,

Punjab Agricultural Agricultur University, Ludhiana, for its analysis which was

declared mis-branded mis by the Insecticide Testing esting Laboratory, Ludhiana.

The sample ample was again sent for re-testing re testing to the C.I.S.L. Faridabad Faridabad, and

during re-testing testing, the C.I.S.L. Faridabad, after having found this sample

mis-branded, branded, sent its report to the office of the Chief Agriculture

officer, Bathinda, which was received on 29.05.2007. The Chief

Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, Bathinda cancelled the lic license of the concerned

Firm M/S Lachman Dass and Sons, Sons vide letter No.1432 dated

13.03.2007 and sent to the concerned Insecticide Inspector, Bathinda Bathinda,

for further necessary action. Thereafter, the petitioner petitioner, who was the

then Insecticide Inspector, Bathinda, Bathinda, for the purpose of initiating

prosecution against the Firm and the concerned persons persons, forwarded the

consent Performa under Section Section 31(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 1968, vide

letter No. Special-1 Special 1 dated 31.03.2008 to the office of the Chief

Agriculture Officer, Offic Bathinda. However, the Chief Agriculture Officer,

2 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

Bathinda, failed to take timely action and kept the matter pending with

him.. Subsequently, the file was forwarded for obtaining written

consent/sancti sanction under Section ection 31(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, from

the Joint Director, Agriculture (P.P.) Punjab, Chandigarh Chandigarh, vide letter

No.3565 dated 22.06.2009, 22.06.2009, resulting in an inordinate delay of about 14

months and 22 days. Thereafter, the requisite sanction for prosecution

was received from the Joint Director, Agriculture (P.P.) Punjab,

Chandigarh vide letter No.1316-1318/A.D.O. No.1316 1318/A.D.O. dated 31.10.2009, after a

delay of approximately 4 months and 8 days. On the receipt of sanction

so granted,, the petitioner instituted proceedings before the competent

court against the Firm and concerned persons on dated 13.07.2011. It is

thus, evident that the complaint was filed after a lapse of approximately

4 years, 1 month and 13 days from from the date of receipt of re-testing

report from the C.I.S.L. Faridabad. It is further pleaded that the

sanction to file the complaint was accorded by the Joint Director,

Agriculture on 31.10.2009.. However, by that time Agriculture, time, the petitioner had

already been transferred from the office of the Chief Agriculture

Officer, Bathinda, to the office of the Chi Chief Agriculture Officer,

Gurdaspur, vide order dated 31.8.2009, issued under endorsement No.

5/6/09-Agr, Agr,-1(2)/5593 1(2)/5593 Chandigarh dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P-

1).Immediately upon receiving intimation regarding the grant of

sanction, the petitioner took prompt steps eps in the matter and after

collecting the requisite documents from the office of the Chief

Agriculture officer, Bathinda, the concerned dealers, as well as from

the Head Office, Chandigarh, Chandigarh filed Complaint omplaint No.18 dated 13.07.2011

3 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

before the Court of the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, B Bathinda.

However, the accused, challenged the aforesaid proceedings by filing

CRM-M-28476 28476-2014 before this Court,, seeking quashing of the

summoning order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned Chief

Judicial icial Magistrate, Bathinda, Bathinda as well as the order dated 09.06.2014

passed by the learned learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fa (Fast Track Court),

Bathinda, along with all other subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, from, on the ground that the complaint had been instituted beyond

the prescribed period of 3 years from the date on which the cause of

action arose, arose or from the date on which the Laboratory report regarding

the alleged misbranding came to the knowledge of the Inspector. Vide

order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed in CRM-M- No.28476

of 2014, this Court directed the authorities to initiate departmental

proceedings against the person or persons found responsible for causing

the delay in filing the complaint.

com Inn compliance to the aforesaid order

of this Court, the matter was examined to ascertain the cause and

responsibility for the delay in instituting the complaint before the

Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1, issued a chargesheet to the

petitioner, vide Memo No.7/15/20-Agri.1(2)/4074 Agri.1(2)/4074 dated 17 17.04.2020

(Annexure P-4), P alleging violation of the instructions issued by the

office of the Director, Agriculture Agriculture, vide letter No. Jt.

D.Agri.(P.P.1)/145 D.Agri.(P.P.1)/145-67 dated 06.01.2017.. As per the said instructions,

an application for approval under Section 31 (1) of the Insecticide Act,

1968 is required to be submitted within 30 days of re-testing, upon the

sample of pesticides being found misbranded misbranded, and the case is required

4 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

to be filed/registered before the competent Court within 30 days of

receipt of such approval. Respondent espondent No.1 appointed Dr. R.C. Nayyar,

I.A.S. (Retd.) as Inquiry Officer for holding the regular departmental

enquiry against the petitioner and he submitted his enquiry report vide

his letter dated 11.05.2022 (Annexure P P-5). Upon receipt of the

aforesaid enquiry report, the petitioner submitted a representation dated

27.03.2023 (Annexure P-6), wherein he denied all the charges level levelled

against him and stated that the proposal seeking sanction had itself been

forwarded by the office of the Chief Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda ,

after a delay of 14 months 22 days and that the Joint Director,

Agriculture (P.P.) had further taken 4 months and 8 days in granting the

sanction under un Section ection 31(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. He further

explained that the delay on his part was neither deliberate nor

intentional, but was occasioned on account of his transfer at Far-off

place and the time consumed in collecting the requisite documents from

the office of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, the concerned

dealer,, as well as from the Head Office ffice, Chandigarh. He has also

clarified that the Government Pleader had also raised certain objections

on several occasions and for that sufficient time wa was consumed to

address the same and for filing of the compl complaint before the Court.

Thereafter, respondent No.1 awarded a punishment of 25% cut in

pension of the petitioner, petitioner vide order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-7).

Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice of motion, respondents

No.1 to 3 have filed their written reply stating therein that the petitioner

5 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

instituted the complaint against the accused persons beyond the

prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner has been found

negligent on account of violation of the instructi instructions issued by the

Director, Agriculture, Punjab. It has further been stated that the

petitioner has neither any cause of action nnor the requisite locus standi

to maintain the present writ petition, inasmuch asmuch as the impugned order

dated 23.02.2024 has been passed strictly in compliance with the

directions issued by this Court dated 17.07.2019.

.2019. The due procedure as

contemplated by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)

Rules, 1970 has been followed in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

impugned order passed by the respondents respondents, whereby a punishment of

25% cut in the pension of the petitioner has been imposed, is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice justice. It was further

submitted that, after retirement, a Government overnment employee ceases to be in

service and d is thereafter governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules,

Volume-II.

II. Consequently, prior to imposing any cut in pension, it was

mandatory for the respondents to issue a show cause notice to the

petitioner under Rule R 2.1 of the PCSR, Volume olume-II, which has not been

done in the present case.

case He further contended that the impugned order

does not record any finding that the petitioner ha had committed grave

misconduct onduct, which is a mandatory precondition under the Rules for

imposing a severe punishment such as a permanent cut of 25% in

pension. Therefore, a punishment imposing a cut of 25% in pension of

the petitioner is grossly disproportionate disproportionate, particularly when no

6 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government nor is any recovery

sought from the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned

counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of this

Court in LPA-340 LPA of 2017 - Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab and

otherss decided on 08.02.2023 and LPA-1389 1389 of 2017 -Major Singh

Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others decided on 13.04.2023 13.04.2023.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the

impugned order by submitting that the petitioner has rightly been

awarded the punishment of 25% cut in his pension as he was

responsible for causing delay in filing a complaint in the Court against

the accused persons. The punishment has been awarded after following

the due procedure proc of law.. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable

to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

7. In the present case, the petitioner has been awarded the

punishment of a permanent cut of 25% in his pension after retirement,

on the allegation of delay in filing a complaint in Court against the

accused while he was in service. It is an admitted fact that no financial

loss, whatsoever, whatsoever has been caused to the State exchequer on account of

the act attributed to the petitioner.

petitioner A Division Bench of this Cour Court, in

Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) while considering similar issue issue, has

held as under: -

"In In the absence of any finding against the appellant that he was responsible for causing financial loss to the Municipal Council either by the enquiry officer or by

7 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

respondent No.1, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to give a finding that financia financial loss was caused to the Municipal Council on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without any material on record.

Only if there is a finding of financial loss caused to Government by the enquiry office or respondent no.1, Rule 2.2(b)of the Rules can be invoked. It permits recovery of pension after it has been sanctioned as a punitive measure in order to make good loss to the Government on account of negligence on the part of an employee.

In the absence of any finding of loss caused to the Government either by the enquiry officer or by respondent No.1, no recovery from pension could have been ordered as a punitive measure by the respondents.

Therefore, this Appeal is allowed; the judgment dt.18.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP CWP-

3418-2014 014 and the impugned order dt.21.05.2013 (P6) passed by respondent No.1 are set aside; and the respondents are directed to pay back to the appellant the amounts deducted from his pension from 21.05.2013 till date with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of such deduction till the date of repayment."

8. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Major Singh

Sandhu's case (supra) by relying on Gurcharan Singh's case (supra),

which reads as under: -

"It It is not in dispute that as per Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules relating to grant of pension, any cut in pension can be ordered only if there is a peculiar loss caused to the Government.

When no peculiar loss has been caused to the State, as per the affidavit filed in the appeal on 24.01.2019 by the Assistant Director, ector, there is no justification warranting imposition of 10% cutting pension on the appellant. The

8 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has erred in giving a finding that loss has been caused to the respondents, which was not warranted.

In Gurcharan Singh h Vs. State of Punjab and others order dt.08.02.2023 in LPA LPA-340-2017, in a similar situation, this Court has taken a view that only if there is finding of financial loss caused to the State, Rule 2.2(b) of the Pension Rules can be invoked, and no recovery from pension can be ordered as a penalty measure by the State in the absence of any loss caused to the Government.

In this view of the matter, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed; order of the learned Single Judge dt.01.02.2017 in CWP-2779-2014 2014 to the ext extent the learned Judge held that the 10% cut in pension made by the respondents from the Pension payable to the appellant is set aside, and the respondents are directed to refund to the appellant the amount of such deduction made from his pension from the date ate from which it was made till date within 08 weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order with interest @ 6% per annum from respective to the dates of deduction till the date of actual payment, and respondents are directed to refund 10% deduction from pension made for the period of 3 years pursuant to the orders dt.15.10.2012 (P-7)

7) and 22.01.2013 (P (P-9) within 08 weeks with interest @ 6% per annum."

9. In view of the foregoing discussion and iin the absence of

any finding that the petitioner was responsible responsible for causing any financial

loss to the respondent-department, respondent the C Chargesheet as well as the

impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law law.

The action of the respondents is contrary to the Statutory rules

governing post-retiral post retiral proceedings and is vitiated by the absence of any

finding of grave misconduct or financial loss caused to th the state

9 of 10

CWP-9234 of 2024

exchequer. Consequently, Consequently, the impugned proceedings ssuffer from

arbitrariness and cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, the present

petition is allowed.

allowed The Charge-sheet sheet dated 17.04.2020 (Annexure P P-

4) as well as the impugned order of punishment dated 23.02.2024

(Annexure P-7) P are hereby set aside. The he respondents are directed to

refund to the petitioner the amounts deducted from his pension pension, from

the date such deductions were effected till the date of actual refund

along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum annum, within a period of eight

weeks from the t date of receipt of a certified copy of this order order.

                                               (NAMIT KUMAR)
29.01.2026                                        JUDGE
R.S.

             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No

             Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                10 of 10